Header Right

Is the Statement semi-Pelagian? (by Chris Roberts)

The recent “Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” has brought a lot of attention to the theology of human nature. Of particular concern is Article 2 which states:

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Many people have read this and responded that it comes very close to the semi-Pelagian position, a position declared heretical at a church council in 529. Many who defend the Statement have denied the semi-Pelagian label, but the question still remains as to whether or not the label fits.

I thought I would take a stab at presenting the various views and seeing where Article 2 fits, if it fits in any of these. On my blog I have a lengthier discussion, but for the sake of brevity on SBC Voices, I’ve chopped it down to the version presented below. Head to Seek the Holy for the full thing.

Pelagian: No natural corruption from sin. Most people will still need salvation because most people will sin. Individuals are able to seek salvation without God having to first remove their corruption or awaken their wills.

Semi-Pelagian: People are greatly corrupt, yet retain the natural ability to do some good, including respond to the gospel in saving faith. We are able to respond to the gospel without God having to first deal with corruption and deadness in our hearts.

Arminian: People are born completely corrupt and unable to respond to God, but God gives prevenient grace to all (or to all who hear the gospel), undoing enough of the corruption in their hearts that they are able to seek or to reject the offer of the gospel.

Calvinism: People are born completely corrupt and unable to respond to God, but God will give life and light to those he has elected to save, removing the corruption of sin and opening their eyes to the glory of the gospel so that they will respond in faith to the gospel call.

Compare those four positions to Article 2 above and see which, if any, fit. I think the critics are correct that Article 2 crosses into semi-Pelagian territory. Consider what is affirmed and denied about the effect of sin on the natural man:

Denied: We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will

The statement affirms that there is corruption (inclined toward sin), but denies that there is inability. The statement elsewhere affirms that we need salvation through Jesus Christ alone, but repeatedly asserts that salvation is found through a free response of the human will, a will which is here claimed to be inclined toward sin but not incapacitated by sin. If that is not semi-Pelagian, what is?

The last part of Article 2’s denial adds: …we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

It is possible that this rescues the Statement from semi-Pelagianism, but I don’t think so. The Statement says that while the Holy Spirit must draw through the gospel, such a drawing does not influence the human will since there still must be a free response (a response of the human will apart from God operating on the will) to the Spirit’s drawing. I assume the writers of the statement mean that the Holy Spirit woos us with the gospel, beckons us to the gospel, shows the beauty and attraction of the gospel (the same way a man might try to win the affections of a woman), but the Spirit does not touch the human will thus avoiding the possibility of “influencing” or “manipulating” the response. In other words, while the Spirit woos and draws, our response to the Spirit originates in the individual through a will that does not need to be changed by God to overcome sin’s corruption.

The Affirmation in Article 2 sounds a lot like what is in the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message article III on Man, but while those editions of the BF&M only speak of our inclination toward sin (as opposed to the 1925 edition which speaks of corruption and bondage), the Statement goes on to deny natural human inability.

As I said above, if this is not semi-Pelagian, what is? I realize that many in the SBC dislike theological labels of any sort, but there are times when labels apply whether we like it or not. I do not see how the Statement can avoid being rightly called semi-Pelagian.

I had already been fairly familiar with semi-Pelagian claims, but just to refresh myself, before writing the post I consulted my usually theology books – Erickson and Grudam – but found surprisingly little in them so I followed them up with a visit to Google. After writing the post I read a more extensive section from Herman Bavinck and found it quite helpful. I’ve posted that section on my blog: http://www.seektheholy.com/2012/06/05/semi-pelagianism-the-statement-and-herman-bavinck/

I have a post that is already in the queue. It interacts with the Statement. It denies the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism. I really, really think you guys need to slow down on those charges. Anyway, it should be up before long.

Part of this will certainly hinge on definitions of Semi-Pelagianism. Based on your definition above, I could not be considered a Semi-Pelagianist because, while I do believe in the ability of man to respond to the drawing of God’s Holy Spirit, I do not believe that this can be called the “natural ability to do some good,” nor do I believe that it is a work to “respond to the gospel in saving faith.” For that matter, I would disagree with the notion of God “dealing with corruption and deadness in our hearts” other than simply by the drawing power of His Holy Spirit, which unlike Semi-Pelagianism, I believe initiates the entire process.

I hope my post will do a better job of making these matters clear, although in it I am working with a definition of Semi-Pelagianism that is worded in a slightly different manner than yours.

Someone please consider whether or not you believe Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy today, and whether, if indeed you do, you are willing to say that the signers of that statement — including six former convention Presidents and two sitting Seminary Presidents, not to mention dozens of theologians, over a hundred pastors and over 300 committed Southern Baptists in all — actually believe in heresy.

The definition of semi-Pelagianism has nothing to do with works or merit but with human ability to respond to God without God first having to change the human heart because of sin’s corruption. When you say, “I would disagree with the notion of God “dealing with corruption and deadness in our hearts” other than simply by the drawing power of His Holy Spirit, which unlike Semi-Pelagianism, I believe initiates the entire process.” then you take the semi-Pelagian position, even if you claim to disagree with semi-Pelagians.

They would not argue that God does nothing prior to our salvation, but that God does nothing to change us, that we, from the moment of birth, are able to respond to the offer of the gospel without God first doing a work in our hearts. We are not dead in sin, we are not incapacitated, we are not unable to respond. God may woo us, he may call us, he may draw us, he may convict us, but he does nothing to change us, enabling us to respond, because we retain the ability, despite the fall, to choose him and respond in faith.

When I say we retain a natural ability to do good, I do not mean they argue we are able to do good that merits God’s grace, but rather that we are still able to do the good act of choosing God. Would you not agree that a person has done a good thing when he calls out in repentance and faith? If he does that without God first enabling him to do that, then he retained a natural capacity to do some good, even if that is the only good thing he is able to do.

If people choose God without God first changing their hearts to deal with the problem of sin, then they retain the ability to choose good. If you believe they are able to choose God without God first dealing with their corruption and blindness, then you are semi-Pelagian.

“The definition of semi-Pelagianism has nothing to do with works or merit but with human ability to respond to God without God first having to change the human heart because of sin’s corruption.”

I believe it does, in the end, have to do with works and merit, but that is not the way semi-Pelagians see it. In my discussion above, I try to present the semi-Pelagian position on its own terms without drawing out the consequences of semi-Pelagian beliefs. In the end, I do think semi-Pelagians create a situation where an individual has done a good work – and must do a good work – in order to be saved, even though semi-Pelagians would deny that this is the case.

Chris, you said:
“When I say we retain a natural ability to do good, I do not mean they argue we are able to do good that merits God’s grace, but rather that we are still able to do the good act of choosing God. ”

How do you justify this statement with Romans 3:10 and 11
“None is righteous, no, not one:
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.”

I would be interested in your interpretation in light of your statement.

That’s the point I’m making. 🙂 I’m trying to present the semi-Pelagian position and what you quoted was what I believe they believe. I further believe that what they believe is opposed by what Romans 3 believes!

Im no scholar so please forgive me if I’m wrong, but do I understand part of this article to mean that we are not guilty of sin until we commit the first sin? Doesn’t that deny a key part of the doctrine of sin. The whole thing sounds like they are trying to “tickle their ears”

Over on SBC Today they began dealing with Article 2 yesterday and I did not see anyting meaningful. Even Dr. Roger Olson, an Arminian, states that it appears to lean toward semi-Pelagianism. I asked that question on SBC Today the day that the document came out, assuming that it was just unclear language or that I was reading it wrong. But, it was defended as being accurate.

Here is the deal: those of us who did not write the document have some questions about it. I am not a Calvinist. But, when I read Article 2, it made me think of a step toward Pelagianism, or, as you say, Semi-Pelagianism. So, can we ask questions of the document and what it makes us think of without outright accusing people? And, can those that we are asking questions of actually answer them without becoming defensive because they think they are being falsely accused? The purpose of putting this out there, I would think, would be to illicit response. So, when the response comes, especially in the form of questions, it would be a good thing for people to answer.

How are we wrong? How is this not taking a step toward semi-Pelagianism?

First, let me again state that the guys I personally know who signed the document are not Arminians. They are not Pelagians. They are not Semi-Pelagians. They are certainly not heretics. And finally, as was the accusation made against them in another thread, they are adherents to a “man-centered gospel.

Nonetheless, I would most assuredly share similar concerns with you about Article 2. That one article, in and of itself is worth a Q&A time with the authors. Hopefully without the baggage of presupposition. Yet, at this point, that may be impossible.

I’ve seen you defend the men as not being semi-Pelagian, and yet they have all fully affirmed the Statement. If Article 2 is semi-Pelagian and these men fully affirm Article 2, how are they not semi-Pelagian?

As I said elsewhere, we should stop arguing whether or not Article 2 is semi-Pelagian – it clearly is. The question to ask now is whether or not the church has been right in its consistent condemnation of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian theology through the centuries, whether or not semi-Pelagian theology is an acceptable area of disagreement among Southern Baptists, and whether or not those who wrote the statement would be willing to go back and revise Article 2 to correct its semi-Pelagian theology.

Regardless of what historic lable they do or do not wish to be known by, the statement they signed aligns with semi-Pelagian position. If they do not want to be known that way they need to start explaining very quickly exactly what they intened to say.

Until such a time as the release a statement that clarifies this we can equate “SBC Traditionalist” === “semi-Pelagian”

Is it possible that many of the signees signed onto this without a sufficient review? I find it hard to believe that many of the signatories, particularly the academics, would have allowed the language of Article 2 to stand had they read it carefully.

Just asking, is it possible in their desire to take a stand against the “New Calvinism,” they did not give as due diligence that they normally would?

Understand, I am not assigning motives to any particular person. The haste with which this kerfuffle has moved seems to have swept people along that frankly should have known better.

If that is the case, you’d think after the firestorm they’d be quick to recant and fess up that they did hastily sign a document that they didn’t fully read. Since none have been so forthcoming, we must assume that some of the leadership in th SBC are confirming beliefs that align with Semi-Pelagians.

Joshua makes a good point, but that sort of things is supposed to be avoided with a well-drafted document. The Gospel Coalition accidentally left the word “the” out of one of their statements and held it back from publication a few days until they could fix it! The whole point of a statement of faith is to make clear what you believe, not muddy the waters about it.

As far the semi-Pelagian/Arminian issue, I think Roger Olson’s (a classic Arminian) is very telling. At the end, he says:

‘The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly. And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin.

‘It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.

‘Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.)’

It’s going to be difficult to get a good, enlightening discussion going on this. The Statement, as many Calvinists and non-Calvinists have alleged, denies any kind of need for the Holy Spirit to incline us toward God prior to our being able to respond to the gospel. This is semi-Pelagianism.

Those who’ve signed the document are going to take this as an accusation that they are semi-Pelagians. Some of them may be. But most of us are not saying that. We’re hoping that the wording doesn’t really represent their convictions and they should revise the wording. Unfortunately, mostly what I’ve seen thus far from the signers is an attempt to redefine semi-Pelagianism.

“The Statement, as many Calvinists and non-Calvinists have alleged, denies any kind of need for the Holy Spirit to incline us toward God prior to our being able to respond to the gospel.”

Direct rebuttal from Article Two: “…we deny that any sinner is saved APART FROM A FREE RESPONSE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT’S DRAWING THROUGH THE GOSPEL.”

I don’t want this to mess with your “ordo salutis” but the statement clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit draws and then man freely responds. Unlike Semi-Pelagianism, this view does NOT claim that man initiates the process. Rather, man responds. Yes, he is able to respond, but only after the Spirit first draws him.

I noticed that line in Article 2, but it does not rescue the Statement from semi-Pelagianism. How do you define or explain what the Spirit does to draw a person? The Spirit drawing a person is not the same as the Spirit operating on a person’s heart to enable their response. The bottom line here is: do you think people are born with the ability to respond to God, with a will that is able to desire God, without God first having to change the human will to enable that response? Does sin corrupt us so much that we are unable to respond apart from grace, or is grace required in order for us to respond?

Note the distinction:
I am not asking if grace is required for us to hear and know the gospel.
I am not asking if grace is required for God to extend the gospel.
Semi-Pelagians would agree with both of these: that God in his grace has offered the gospel to all and calls and draws all to salvation.

I am asking if grace is required to make it possible for the individual to respond to the offer? The offer has already been made, that grace has already been given, the individual has the offer of salvation before him. Now, in order to respond to that offer – in order to accept it, to see his sin, to desire salvation, is it necessary for God to change his heart, to open his eyes, to lift the stain of sin so that he is able to respond?

You disagree with Calvinists and Arminians that we are born completely unable to respond, so I assume you believe we are born able to respond to the gospel when, by God’s grace, it is presented to us. That is semi-Pelagianism.

I believe the clause in the “denial” is sufficient to remove the suspicion of semi-pelagianism. I don’t think that we can say that the drawing of the Spirit is not an expression of God’s grace. We do not come on our own. we come because the grace of God draws us. The statement that we are “remotely uncapable of achieving salvation on [our] own effort” is sufficient to remove the step of unaided grace, which effectively removes the basic tenet of semi-pelagianism.

We also, to be fair, must remember that Augustine is the innovator here. No one in the church before him saw the radical inability of the human to respond. The semi-Augustinians (smile) wanted to avoid the direct result of Augustine’s ideas – determinism – because they wanted to protect God from being the author of sin.

Also, the entire Eastern Orthodox church believes that the will is not bound in the way of the Augustinian-Lutheran-Calvinist tradition. I am not EO, but the radical “bondage” of the will is not universal among orthodoxy (little “o”). Call this a disagreement. Call this not as carefully worded as you (and I) wish it were. But don’t call it SP and don’t call it heresy.

Unlike you, I believe there is room for a belief in man’s ability to respond to God that does not bind one to the label of Semi-Pelagianism, which also claims many other things I happen to reject, namely, (1) that salvation is initiated by man, (2) that man’s response is a meritorious work, and (3) that in simply accepting God’s grace man is somehow cooperating with God in bringing about his own salvation.

I think I see where this is headed. You will insist I am a Semi-Pelagianist based only upon my acceptance of man’s ability to respond, the one aspect I do happen to share with Semi-Pelagianism, while I will deny that I am a Semi-Pelagianist based upon the three other assertions of Semi-Pelagianism to which I am quite strongly opposed.

If the entirety of Semi-Pelagianism does not fit my belief, you must call it something else. I recommend Traditionalism. Whether or not it is a heresy you are free to contemplate, but it is NOT the same thing exactly as Semi-Pelagianism.

“Unlike you, I believe there is room for a belief in man’s ability to respond to God that does not bind one to the label of Semi-Pelagianism”

Maybe, but I’m not sure what that position would be, and from my own examination above, I’m not sure how this Statement can avoid the charge of semi-Pelagianism. I’ve explained why your differences are not actual differences with semi-Pelagianism, yet you keep insisting on them.

“…many other things I happen to reject, namely, (1) that salvation is initiated by man, (2) that man’s response is a meritorious work, and (3) that in simply accepting God’s grace man is somehow cooperating with God in bringing about his own salvation.”

(1) By that you mean that God first offers the gospel, he first extends grace by drawing, calling, wooing people to the gospel and salvation. You do not mean that God takes a person and moves him to the gospel. I believe you would say that when a person moves to the gospel, he is doing so by his own volition, his own will, his own decision. God has not initiated his decision. God has called him, but the individual himself was fully responsible for his decision to respond. In that sense, he initiated not the fullness of his salvation, but his acceptance of salvation, his entering into salvation, his receiving God’s offer. That is semi-Pelagian.

(2 & 3) Semi-Pelagians would agree with you on both these points, but they would be wrong to do so. The semi-Pelagian position presented in the Statement leaves man in a position to do what God will not do: exercise the natural freedom and ability of his free will to take hold of salvation. If man did not do this, then he would not be saved. Thus, any individual’s salvation requires a free, natural act of the human will, giving man a cooperative role with God in the work of salvation.

You do of course realize that Gill only read with the eye that supported what he wanted to believe. He kept the other eye shut tight. :0)

At the risk of playing Abelard, the pre-Augustinian fathers had plenty more to say about the radical freedom of man. Gill suffered from a disease that the accusers of semi-P suffer from today: selectivereadingitis. I hear it’s contagious. I fear it is true.

Jim G.: I took notes on the church fathers and am aware of how they varied among themselves even as we do today. The interesting thing Gill did was to search out those statements which indicated a commitment to Sovereign Grace. We have the duce mixture in Southern Baptists today, and in the 1700s, when the the great awakenings occurred, the theology became almost exclusively Sovereign Grace among those in America who were enjoying the effect of such a visitation. You should note in my other statements else where how I stress that the DOGS are all invitations to salvation, to trust God. They are therapeutic paradoxes designed to turn the world upside down, and the sinner right side up, empowering and enabling him or her to respond.

I understand that, James. But I think it is disingenuous to see “Sovereign Grace” read back into them, as they would have never bought into such a theology. The pre-Augustine fathers spent their time fighting the determinism in pagan (chiefly late Stoic, Neo-Platonic, and Manichaean) thought. I’ve read through Gill and his re-incarnation down in Mobile (Lawson, I believe, is his name). They both effectively yank sentences out of the fathers and say “See! See! There it is!” without reading the flow of the fathers as a whole. I think both evidence very sloppy and disingenuous scholarship in doing so. No fair reading of the pre-Augustinian fathers as a whole would ever conclude that they taught anything resembling the determinism (or almost determinism) of Augustine and his spiritual children.

Jim G: You are being a little disingenuous. If the quotes which support the views of Sovereign Grace were not there, it would be a bald face lie on Gill’s part. However, as I noted, I took notes on the early fatihers, etc., and I can tell you this: when Gill makes a quote, he is dependable and noted for it among the scholars who honored him with a D.D. at the University of Glasgow. After all, the Presbyterians are rather noted for being scholars, and Calvinists, too. In fact, the newly elected President of the NEA was quoted in the San Diego paper as saying, now that we have gotten rid of the calvinists in education we can do what we want. That report comes from a retired chaplain who was stationed there circa 1980, when the statement was made…and the chaplain was not and is not a calvinist. And if you knew American History, you would know that the calvinists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists, with a few Reformed and Anglicans thrown in for good measure, were the folks who not only established our denominational schools, they also founded out state universities. Sorry, friend, though there are other quotes in the early church fathers, you can’t deny the ones that Gill dug out with years of hard work.

You are not understanding my point, James. Pulling one sentence out of Against Heresies that seems to mesh with “sovereign grace” does not make Irenaeus a divine determinist. “Quotes” are not the issue. It is the whole tenor of their work.

I’m not even remotely close to a Calvinist, but if you examine any 25-30 pages of my theological writing, I am sure you could pull out a few quotes that, taken by themselves, would seem to indicate that I was. That is what Gill did – he took the quotes by themselves without acknowledging the greater scope of the writings of the fathers.

“And if you knew American history…you would know…”

Thanks for the condescending remark. I do know American history, though it is not my field of specialty. I know that denominational schools are founded by denominations. I know state schools are founded by the state, though there were undoubtedly Christian men involved in the process. That’s not rocket science. Neither does it have a thing to do with what I wrote.

I said that Gill cherry-picked quotes he liked while ignoring the greater scope of the works of the Fathers. Had the Greek fathers espoused a form of proto-Augustinian views as their guiding theological paradigm, then Eastern Orthodoxy would embrace it today, since they follow the Greek fathers. They are not even remotely Augustinian, so I don’t think they read the Greek fathers anywhere close to the way Gill did. Weighing Gill vs. EO in a balance, I’ll take EO on this one.

Jim G.: Arguing like you do, one could prove that the Puritans must not have been calvinists and trinitarians because them folks in that area of the country today in the churches that once were Puritan are at best unitarians and at worst nothing. So much for your argument concerning the Greek Orthodox of the day…and don’t forget that like the Roman Catholics, they, too, practiced persecution (which, being true, begs the question of how they are connected to them folks in the first few centuries who were willing to die for the faith and who did not pick up the sword to defend it). Gill’s laurels, as Spurgeon pointed out are still green. Yes, even in the 1800s, the mid to late 19th century, Gill was noted for his scholarship. It is much like the arguments that have been trotted out to prove that America was founded by a bunch of deists and that this establishes the fact that religion was to be allowed no place in the public forum. It was just to be a private matter hid away within four walls behind stained glass windows. Doesn’t matter that the Supreme Court in 1792 and again in the `1890s declared that America was a Christian nation, or that Thomas Jefferson, when President, attended a Baptist Church that met in the Capital Building until they could build a building. Gill quoted statements which leave no doubt as to their meaning, and there are other statements which people looking for support for their opinions cite without understanding. Some of the statements require baptism as being essential to salvation. Augustine, for instance, paved Hell with infants, because they were not baptized. Ignorance is a problem for all of us, but Gill’s learning was recognized as cyclopedic in his days.

Rick, When you say man is able to respond only after the Spirit draws him, you have already given away your cases…for that is calvinism or Sovereign Grace’s argument….And it is the one reason the calvinists and those who bought the idea that Christ tasted death for every one without exception could and did work together for 225 years (ever since the Union of Separates and Regulars in Va. in 1787). Even Billy Graham acknowedges that the Spirit must draw and enable man to respond. That drawing is what empowers and enables the sinner to respond. All the rest of the stuff is camouflage.

Well, isn’t this interesting, Dr. Willingham? I personally am not the one who stated man can only respond after the Spirit draws him–the Statement actually says that in Article Two.

So if, as you say, this defines a position as Calvinism, then Calvinism has now been equated, by half the readers of SBC Voices, including the author of a resolution on unity, with the same heresy of Semi-Pelagianism they have charged Traditionalists with embracing!

I get the feeling that no matter how many times, and no matter how many ways, we tell them that we are not Semi Pelagianists, that they’re gonna keep on saying that we are….because, it makes this document…which is not Calvinistic….look bad. It’s their attempt to put it down…so, harsh rhetoric like they’re using is the way to shoot something down.

You know, like when there was a fight that led to someone getting killed in the old West towns….and the one that the bar crowd liked got killed….so, they would hoist a few, and they’d start saying that thier buddy was murdered…even though it was a fair fight….then, a lynch mob would worked up to the point of getting that “murderer” out of jail to string him up…..

“I get the feeling that no matter how many times, and no matter how many ways, we tell them that we are not Semi Pelagianists, that they’re gonna keep on saying that we are….because, it makes this document…which is not Calvinistic….look bad.”

You might consider another possibility: that no matter how many times people claim the Statement is not semi-Pelagian, I will continue to say it is because it is. Simple denial does not change reality. Article 2 says what it says, and what it says aligns closely with semi-Pelagian theology.

John, I noticed your statement, “For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.” Just wanted to pull that out because I agree and have also been thinking (and sometimes saying) that for a long time. This is not a Southern Baptist issue. Many Baptists I know that are non-Calvinist, in practice believe salvation is just a matter of what a person decides to do. You can tell by what they do, regardless of what they say.

I don’t know if this helps much, but it does include some historical data from that Church council in 529 A.D. :

“Semi-pelagianism teaches that God first helps man,
but then man by his own ability comes to God.

This is a heresy that the Catholic Church condemned at the council of Orange.

“After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system (we call this ‘semi-Pelagian’).
This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace;
that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.”

Council of Orange 529 AD

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). ”

Apparently the council of Orange took seriously the sacred verse: ‘For apart from Me, you can do nothing’.

It appears that the phrase
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will”
needs further clarification in order to answer CHRIS.

I suppose the term ‘incapacitation’ is confusing . . . a deep wound can affect capacity, but need not destroy it,
and I wonder if that term reflects that point of view. If it does, then it is in sync with the belief that the human ability to choose was wounded, but not destroyed . . . a belief not so far from my own faith.

It is known that in orthodox Christian belief, that all we do in this world of goodness, and all we have of goodness, comes from the help that God has provided us through grace (although Christians sometimes disagree on how this grace comes to us) . . .
but that word: ‘incapacitation’ does not PRECLUDE an acceptance that in choosing God, we are responding to His grace.

If, however, that word ‘incapacitation’ rejects that our turning toward God is all our own doing without His enabling us with grace, then I can see the problem.

I have a feeling that the word ‘incapacitation’ was aimed more towards
a rejection of the idea that mankind has NO choice: that ‘election’ means that God does all the ‘choosing’ for men,
even to the point that God has chosen for some part of mankind to be delivered into evil and they were never called to Him.
That concept of God ordaining evil for some of his creatures, without any hope of grace for them, is rejected by orthodox Christianity, yes.

What is the full understanding of ‘incapacitation’?
Has that been clarified? If not, can it be clarified?

Since semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the church as heretical, and since others have said this is what many SBs believe, I would like to hear your thoughts (whoever would like to reply) on the following statement by Roger Olson:

“I believe in making a distinction between ‘heresy’ and ‘heretic.’ A belief (or denial of one) can be heresy without the person being a heretic. … A person is only a heretic when the orthodox truth has been clearly understood and denied. It’s difficult to tell when a person has clearly understood. So I rarely call a person a heretic.”

You can read his comment in context at Patheos. It was left at 1:00pm today.

Well, I suppose we can play with semantics a bit. For those of you who believe Semi-Pelagianism is heresy, and who believe that the Statement contains such heresy, are you willing to claim that six former convention Presidents, two sitting seminary Presidents, dozens of theologians and hundreds of Pastors are guilty of believing in this heresy?

I would not jump to call them heretical, but as I pointed out above, it sure seems like they should have read this a little more carefully and at the very least recognized the problems with article 2. It seems some of them should have pushed for clearer language.

I am willing to say they goofed, and every one has that problem of goofing now and then. However, if they don’t correct it, then they do have a problem. I mean, if even an Arminian theologue says its semi-pelagianism, then it follows they have made an egregious error, one that can be papered over or covered up by a few remarks. They have put themselves in disagreement with Jesus who clearly said that out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, etc.. Yes, the heart is the source of such evil, and that evil requires a supernatural act of God in order to do something about it.

You said, “They have put themselves in disagreement with Jesus who clearly said that out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, etc.. Yes, the heart is the source of such evil, and that evil requires a supernatural act of God in order to do something about it.”

O Baloney! Volfan: Your going to ruin your support for the Volunteers by jumping to conclusions. My point was that one can wind up saying and doing things that leaves one hanging out over empty spaces. Later you will be scrambling to straighten stuff out. Olson merely supplied some justification to suggest that they had gone a little far a field; they flirted with a heresy, not that they were full-fledged heretics. I try to avoid the extremes of accusation. Now and then, I get perturbed, when folks ignore facts. However, even them I try to swat at their follies and not at their persons. It is a technique in counseling to advice that one disagree over some act and not tab or tar the person with a devestating charge.

Hey, I am trying to find where you serve. Could you help me on that? I have seen you comment on many things but just cannot find where you are serving.

Let’s look at Olson. Even a biased reading of his article one must admit that Olson’s point is that he wants more Arminians. He seems to be more perturbed that we do not call ourselves Arminians than anything else. He points to a surprise concerning our statement that neither Arminians nor Calvinists would support. That has been our position all along. We are not Arminians, neither are we Calvinists. We are Baptists!!!!

Tim: I am (dare I use the first part of the following term) semi-retired in Apex, NC, meaning I don’t have a church and haven’t had one for 15 years though I have looked. Now my age, 71 shoots me down, and, succeeding inspite of that, a second marriage shoots me down (though we need only 7 years and 3 most from today to reach our Golden Wedding Anniversary and have a son in the ministry (and I like pks so much I even have a grand pk…preachers just ask your pks what I mean) and my wife helped raise my daughter from my first marriage. My email address us jimwillingham@att.net.

But I think he’s right on both counts: the theology of the book Whosoever Will sounds very Arminian, whether or not the label is accepted. The theology of Article 2 sounds very semi-Pelagian (so that I cannot tell the difference), whether or not the label is accepted.

Chris,
Couldn’t someone also say Calvinist theology sounds very much like Hyper-Calvinist theology?
Couldn’t it be said it leans that way?
Couldn’t someone say Calvinist theology sounds very much like Fatalism or making man robots?

Some terms and charges, like Pelagian / semi-Pelagian, tend to poison the waters.
David R. Brumbelow

My ordaining pastor was a self-ifentified hyper-calvinist, a supralapsarian and he pleaded with my unbelieving step-father until tears ran down my step-father’s face. You can’t even say a hyper-calvinist doesn’t care, when one who knew his theology was like that. O yes, and he is identified as the founder and first president of the American Race Track Chaplaincy . Cf. Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd.edn.Chicago: Marquis Pubs., 1977, and I am happy to be listed in the same volume with a pastor like that.

Tim: I replied to you once. Were you wanting to contact me? Live in Apex, NC area, merely a church member these days. will supply, d.v., for our son on July 1st. Supply for our pastor at Good Hope B C in Cary on Weds nights now and then, when he needs me.

I think it can be a helpful distinction, in moderation. I do not believe most of those who signed the statement are heretics, but I do believe most of those who signed the statement have been unwise and have not given it enough thought.

I think Olson’s statement is helpful in most cases. However, article 2 is intentionally worded as it is—and affirmed by those who should clearly understand orthodox doctrine. So that’s a problem. Still, I am not ready to call them semi-Pelagian heretics, although the statement on the whole seems to favor SP.

As for my name, the k is my first initial, and Schaub is my last name. My name is Kevin.

I read this yesterday and will have to look up the source. I posted this at SBC Today stating my thinking that article 2 is awful and wrong and goofy and unorthodox, but not necessarily heresy. But that depends on how one defines heresy.

“One writer says of heresy as he quotes several others,

“Formal heresy is the “persistent and stubborn denial of a fundamental doctrine, even though one has been instructed in the truth.” Material heresy is when one “embraces a doctrine that is itself heretical but embraces it in ignorance.””

“Material heresy” may qualify as to what this article 2 is. But it is a step too far to then call signers heretics since if it is material heresy, they have signed on and written it in ignorance.

I guess the doctrine of the Trinity will be next to go under the knife for these guys… They clearly have no need for the work of the Holy Spirit in their Soteriology.

If this was not so sad, I would be laughing right now… We have known fro a long time that many of these guys were Simi-Pelagian, and now they have removed all doubt.

I would like to ask the authors of this “Simi-Pelagian Baptist Statement of Faith” to explain:

(1) Exactly what the purpose and work of the Holy Spirit is in salvation?

(2) What is the the purpose of Regeneration, and what benefits does Regeneration bring to the believer?

Lastly I take great exception to these guys claim that their opinions represent a “Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”. The Southern Baptist Convention has not approved this Statement, and until such a time as it does, this claim is absolutely False!

I’m not a Semi-Pelagain, Traditionalists, or anything of the sort. Sign me up for the dead Frenchman’s team. But I’d like to take a stab at answering these from their perspective just to see if I get the argument correctly.

(1) The Holy Spirit works to draw and to woo sinners. He knows how to present the gospel to us and so he does just that. He draws sinners to Himself. Yes, he can be rejected and resisted but the work of the Spirit is to convict the world of sin and righteousness and draw men to Jesus.

(2) Regeneration happens after a person is saved. This is the same thing as Paul declaring us a “new creation”. Once we believe we are given a new heart that inclines us toward God and not as our old heart inclined us away from him.

Pretty good, although I would not worry so much about the “ordo salutis” placing regeneration after a person is saved. While I do not believe as most here do that regeneration PRECEDES faith, I DO agree with the Baptist Faith and Message that regeneration, repentance, faith and justification are all “inseparable experiences of grace.”

That which is inseparable does not need to be placed in meticulous order.

Though I would say that regeneration precedes faith I am happy to sign off on the BF&M because I’m of the opinion that while logically regeneration precedes faith they really are inseparable experiences of grace. (Now I hope we–not you and I, but others–don’t start an argument about this fleshing out this one).

(1) Does this drawing have an effect upon the “Free Will” of the one whom the Holy spirit draws? And if so, is that person’s will truly free anymore when compared to the one he is not drawing? If the Holy Spirit does not woo and draw all sinners equally (every person who has ever lived) then he has chosen some (Doctrine of Election) and passed over others. In other words, you have only changed the method in which God’s elect are saved and not defeated the doctrine at all.

(2) Is a persons “Free Will / Heart” changed by Regeneration? If so then a person would have a “Free Will” before salvation, but not have a “Free Will” after salvation. And if a person has a “Free Will” before and after salvation, then why may he not at any time reject his own salvation?

I anxiously await the answers to this one. I’ll give it a go but I’m not sure how well I can do.

1) No because his will was already free. The Holy Spirit is using the sinners free will. Some will respond, with their free will, and others will not. God is drawing everyone to himself but some by their free decision reject Christ. (See John 3:18-21). Some respond to the light. Others reject it.

2) He won’t reject it because his affections have been changed. Theoretically, I guess he could reject his salvation but he won’t because…..ahhh, man I tried….I’m having a hard time defending libertarian free will. Somebody help, please!

Man fell with Adam in the Garden. Man is a sinner, because of the sin of Adam. Man is a sinner, who needs a Savior. Man is incapable of saving himself. Man has a sin nature, with a bent towards sinning…from his birth. Man is spiritually dead. Man will not and cannot come to God, except the Holy Spirit convicts and calls him. Man cannot do anything to save himself. if a person is saved, its only because of the grace of God.

If that is what you believe, then I would not call you semi-Pelagian (depending on some clarifications). But that is not what Article 2 says. And I might be curious to prod you a little further to understand what you mean by “Man will not and cannot come to God, except the Holy Spirit convicts and calls him.” I would like to know just what it is that the Spirit does when he convicts and calls?

I believe what I said about man and salvation in the above statement fits perfectly with Article 2 in the statement.

Conviction simply means to convince. He convinces us of the truth of the Gospel. Calling means that the Holy Spirit persuades us. And, man left to himself will not seek after God. Also, man cannot pull himself up by the bootstraps, and say, “Well, I guess I’d better straighten my life up, and go to God.” That’s Semi Pelagian. That’s not what I believe, and I do not see Article 2 saying that, either.

Brother, I live around Semi Pelagianists and pure old Pelagianists, and I’d imagine you do, too. In fact, I have some in my extended family. I heard an uncle of mine say, one time, that my aunt was a good woman, all she needed to do was to get baptized, and she’d go to Heaven. Guess what church my uncle belonged to.

I’ve heard people from Semi Pelagian churches talk about how they have to straighten their lives up before they can come to God. Or, they straightened thier lives up, and they’re trying to live for God.

Whether or not you are semi-Pelagian, article 2 is semi-Pelagian. At best, it needs to be re-written.

I’m still curious what it is you believe the Spirit does? From what you said elsewhere, I’m back to thinking you do hold the semi-Pelagian position because you believe the will does not need the Spirit to overcome sin in the will before the will is able to respond? When you say the Spirit must convict, what do you mean by that? Simply show a person he is guilty? Or open a person’s eyes to see that he is guilty? The first is semi-Pelagian, the second is (closer to) Scripture.

Can anyone give a scriptural reference to back up the denial of article 2 without having to do some crazy infrequence. None of the “well if this means that, and this says that, therefore this must mean . . . ” None of that stuff, just show me in the scripture some support for this stuff.

I totally believe in person responsibility and the aspect of choice. As a Wovenist, I totally support the idea of man’s choice, but it interacts with God’s sovereign plan, and Salvation does not happen apart from the ordaining and power of God in His grace. Man does not choose it on his own apart from God. So someone support that statement for me from scripture.

While we all would like to see further clarification on Article 2, I think that the Calvinists who seem to smell blood in the water would be well served to back up a bit. A + B does not necessarily = C.

That is why discussion and questioning is good. If we can clarify our positions and understand one another better, then we are all better for it. I have learned that the blogs and declarations and statements are terrible ways to debate and even to pin people down. Questioning, answering, and discussing is much better because we actually get a chance to explain.

‘Perhaps Traditionalists need to start accusing Calvinists of semi-Fatalism and semi-Hyper-Calvinism. After all, there are some similarities.’

David, they have. Many times. I’ve heard it. Both sides like to call names. The Calvinists are doing it this time. Both sides need to stop, of course. But, questions on Article 2 are legitimate and worthy of discussion. We can say that things that people say cause us to think in a certain direction and we can then ask them if that is what they really mean. That is legitimate.

Since my ordaining pastor was a hyper calvinist, his own words, and also a soul winner, par excellence, founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy, and pastor of soul winning churches, I would not like it very much if you called hyper calvinism fatalism. He pleaded with my step-father to look to Christ for salvation until tears ran down my step-fathers face. You folks need more knowledge of supralapsarian hyper calvinism, and that before you identify them as fatalists.

First of all I’ve yet to here anyone branded a heretic. It is possible for people to make a statement, create a document, sign that document, publish that document and then have some push back. It is possible for those pushing back to say, “whoa, I think you guys might be crossing a line here in this document towards Semi-Pelgianism”. And it is possible to do all of that without saying, “those who signed this are rank-heretics.

Secondly, Both Alan Cross and Roger Olsen (both not Calvinists) have called this article into question. I know Olsen has said it’s Semi-Pelagianism. Not sure why this should give you a bad taste for Calvinism.

Lastly, I’d be interested to know which Bible passages you believe might be charged with semi-Pelagianism.

David, if someone claims a doctrine that seems to match up with a former doctrine that has been declared heresy, why is it ridiculous to state it? I have not seen one real piece of evidence that Traditionalism isn’t SP and full of Finny’s Systematic Theology.

And yes, Bible Passages out of context can be charged as semi-pelagiansim, but it’s not the fault of Calvinists, and there would be no “start” to accusations by the non-Calvinist group of labels. It’s why I left both camps. I think you guys are all off your rockers.

I’m not surprised “heretic” is a term we seem to love to throw around these days. And I think we are also a little quick to throw around “false gospel” and “works salvation”. I think people can have a tendency to speak very black and white and not really think through the implications of such pointed statements. I’m sorry if you’ve been on the receiving end of some of those barbs from my Calvinist friends.

Now, granted, I’ve never heard you preach the gospel so I’m not in a position to state either. But I’d assume that you don’t until I was proven otherwise.

I guess when you get right down to it, the differences in a Calvinist and a Traditionalist is in the finer points of theology. They are in a grayer area of theology, of which there should be wiggle room for disagreement….without one calling the other one a preacher of a false Gospel, or a heretic.

Now, I’m not saying that these finer points are not important, because they definitely are. But, we agree on far more than we disagree. And, I look upon my Calvinistic Brothers and Sisters as my fellow Christians, who preach the Gospel. While I do believe that yall are wrong about those finer points of theology, I do not call yall heretics.

David I agree. I like how Charles Simeon questioned John Wesley (I imagine the questioning would need to go a different way in our day and age). But he basically came to the conclusion that though we differ on the finer points of how a man comes to Christ (or even why) we agree that the only way to salvation is through Jesus and that the gospel needs to be preached.

Having said that, I still think there is room for being able to say, “This statement sure seems Semi-Pelagian. Are you sure that’s what ya’ll mean?” I know big difference from outright saying, “heretics” “God-hating atheists”, etc. and sometimes I think just as people can be too black and white and aggressive at other times we can be too darn sensitive and not willing to hold our theology humbly.

BTW, Mike, if you wanna see where Traditionalists are being called heretics, all you gotta do is go to the post “A Statement of Tradional Southern Baptist….” and look at what Alan David and Darrell are saying in the comments around 250 something….

Dr. Olson is a classic Arminian…which is not that far from a Calvinist. I guess its just hard for Reformation philosophers to see that there can be something besides an Arminian, and Calvinist without it being a Pelagian.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t the Second Council of Orange also seem to affirm baptismal regeneration – i.e., that it is in baptism that one is regenerated (Canons 5, 8, and 13.). And Chris, your assertion that man has a natural ability to do good is also refuted by this Canons of Orange (Canon 20).

My point is: if you’re going to use the findings of a council of men, then are you in complete agreement with their findings (or only partial)? By making an argument based upon the declaration of this council, then it seems that you are supporting those findings in their entirity (though you may actually not be in support of them). I don’t think that most of us would affirm baptismal regeneration, but this council seems to do so. So then, do we pick and choose amongst its canons? do we throw it out? do we accept it in its entirity?

That’s one reason I have said that what we need to do now is decide whether or not semi-Pelagian theology is heresy. The Article is clearly semi-Pelagian. Now, is there room for semi-Pelagian theology in the SBC?

Perhaps we should review whether it is or not. If we perceive that the council that declared it heresy was flawed in its other canons, then we might ought to (and if I recall correctly, only 14 bishops were present at this council, out of who knows how many). However, who would decide this? The body of Christ has been split up into various denominations and there is no one body that speaks for all of “Christendom.” Outside of the clear revelation of God, it is the body of Christ (led by the Holy Spirit) who decides this, I should think.

As to the document, I cannot say for sure. It seems that various sides are arguing with different definitions – which equals stalemate, in my opinion. I do recognize that some things could be made clearer.

I just think that when we declare ourselves followers of any man other than the God-man Jesus Christ, we are placing ourselves outside of the realm of what Scripture teaches us to do. Do they have great insights? Sure. Do they have some flaws in their thinking? Yes; after all, they were human. So, whether it be Calvin, or Augustine, or Wesley, or Arminius, or whoever, let us first go to Scripture, and evaluate what they say by that standard. Our problem at this stage is that the way we think has been influenced by one of more of these men. We wear Calvinist- or Arminian- or some other lenses. And because this is the way we think, we view Scripture through those glasses. How can we view (without these lenses, or at least taking them into consideration) what the text says? I do not know; it is beyond my ken. However, if we find an area where we do not agree with these men, it should make us consider the other areas where we may agree; for if they are suspect in one area, they very well could be suspect in others.

Perhaps we should tone down the rhetoric on both sides, and examine what the Scripture says on these issues, and perhaps admit that the other side has a valid (though in our view wrong) interpretation of the passages of Scripture in question. In which case we have not “heresy” but “error.”

For the record, I claim neither Calvinism nor Arminianism. And perhaps with some clarifications and slight alterations I could claim the document in question. And if I were forced to choose (if they were the only two options) between strict Augustinian theology and semi-Pelagianism, I’d have to honestly go s-P. But I do not have to do that; I’d rather follow and lay claim to Jesus and His perfect Word than tie myself to man-made philosophies and systems that go beyond the Scriptures in order to to make their cases. And I will definitely admit that I am by no means an expert on any of these subjects; I am merely trying to stay true to His standard to the best of my abilities, relying on His grace to lift me up when (and I do mean when) I stumble and to strengthen me for the journey (for my own strength is utter weakness).

I pray that Christ, who is the Light from eternity, would illuminate us with His wisdom, would grant to us His peace, and would soften our hearts towards one another that we might truly show the world that we are not of the world but are set apart for and by Him, that His love is seen through us.

The comment stream kind of exploded after you responded to me, so I thought I’d make a separate response down here.

I said the Statement “denies any kind of need for the Holy Spirit to incline us toward God prior to our being able to respond to the gospel.”

You said, “… the statement clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit draws and then man freely responds.”

But “drawing” and “inclining” are not the same thing. When you speak of the Spirit drawing someone, you mean in a general sense, so the person who hears the gospel and continues and sin and the person who hears the gospel, repents, and believes are both equally drawn by the Spirit.

When I speak of the Spirit inclining someone, I mean that the person hears the gospel but cannot respond to it because he is inclined away from God. The Holy Spirit then inclines him to God and he believes. This doesn’t happen in someone who ultimately rejects the gospel.

For us, it is the Spirit overcoming our inability to believe the gospel. For you it is the Spirit convincing us to overcome our reluctance to believe the gospel.

“I actually agree with you in this characterization of our perspectives on the work of the Holy Spirit PRIOR to man’s response of faith. I simply disagree that this makes me a Pelagian of any sort…”

But it doesn’t matter if you disagree, the label still fits. If you believe a human being is able to respond to the gospel without God first overcoming our inability, you are semi-Pelagian. Cut and dry, that is it, case closed. Nothing more needs be said. Next question: is there room for semi-Pelagianism in the SBC?

So, according to your definition then “dead” in Ephesians is no response at all to God. However, you are using “dead” in a way it is not intended. Your position gives Adam’s sin as “killing” the image of God in man. Is that what you are saying? Man killed God?

If you believe and hold to the point that man cannot choose good even when he wants you just denied that he is created in the image of God. Man, given the opportunity, under the Holy Spirit’s drawing, still is able to choose God. If he is not able on his own free will to choose God then God has nothing but a bunch of robots who response when God pushes their buttons.

Man! Tim, you are in for a surprise, when you find out that dead spiritually is like being dead physically. There is no interest and no response to anything of true God or godliness from one in such a state. Add it all up: Slave of sin, going astray as soon as born, speaking lies, child of Satan, and spiritual dead, heart of stone, blind, deaf, dumb, darkened, and the only answer is utterly helplessness and unresponsiveness. It takes a supernatural act of God. Now here is the part most calvinists miss. God calls on us to do the impossible, so that we will come to know our helplessness as we begin to come to life and, as a result, will call on Him for help.

Question for those who take Article 2 as Semi-Pelagian. How do you explain the statement ” we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel”? It seems someone would have to go out of their way to interpret that statement as consistent with Semi-Pelagian, yet it also seems to help explain what the authors had in mind by “incompatibility of free will”.

It would depend on what they mean by the Spirit’s drawing. Taken at face value, I assume they mean that the Spirit woos us, calls us, motions for us, even pursues us, but doesn’t actually change anything in us until after we respond to his drawing.

After reading a lot of blogs I have come to the conclusion that if many Southern Baptists can not make it as preachers, they can definitely make it by picking cherries.
To often ministers rely on what others say about individuals in church history rather than investigating the lives of Christians in the past themselves. If one would study Church History he or she will understand that the Pelagian Controversy centered over Pelagius teaching of freewill and his rejection of original sin. He wrongly taught that a child was born innocent like Adam when he was first created, and only becomes a sinner after his or her first sin. He rightly opposed infant baptism. His emphasis was on morality. However, he did not try to force his view on anyone. His student, Celestius, had travel to North Africa and proceeded to teach Pelagius’ theology while he attacked infant baptism to the extent that the Church felt the need to address it. Augustine opposed freewill while emphasizing the sovereignty of God. He taught that man entered the world like Adam after his fall. Augustine also believed that the sacraments provided salvation and in infant baptism. The cherry pickers only pick the bad cherries of Pelagius’ of his opposition to original sin, but overlook the cherries of his opposition of infant baptism and they pick the cherries of Augustine belief in the sovereignty of God, but over look the cherries of his belief in infant baptism and the sacraments. To call Augustine a Calvinist, as some do, is unbelievable.

I believe that men are a slave to sin, before they get saved; and that they become a slave to Jesus after they get saved. We are dominated by sin, or by Jesus. In the words of Bob Dylan, “you’ve gotta serve somebody.”

In my opinion, to the extent that the discussion clarifies a concern and causes a meaningful response, it isn’t hurting any cause. Unless you believe the cause it is hurting is keeping the SBC unified. I’ll offer that any effort to put down formal statements much past the BF&M 2K are only impactful to the extent that the purpose of the statements is, precisely, to “divide the house” from a parliamentarian viewpoint.

I’m actually very much in favor of an effort that provides clarity between the many different groups in the conservative coalition that highlights differences in theology, doctrine, ecclesiology, and even eschatology while affirming the common commitment to the Bible and to missions as documented via agreement on the BF&M2K.

In all do respect David, I think dismissing the discussion and telling everyone they are hurting their case is. . . well hurting your case. If there is evidence for defense, then by all means use it, but don’t just dismiss it because you think it looks bad. That. . . well looks bad.

While I don’t see how a person could conclude that everyone will sin simply because they are “inclined” towards sin (in other words, I don’t see how an inclination will lead to an actualization 100% of the time–and that such language must leave open the possibility of there being one who will not sin).

I think the statement still A) Binds everyone under sin, and B) Still centers salvation as a work of God and makes it clear that no person will respond without God first working in them.

We see A) in the affirmation that every person capable of moral action will sin; and we see B) in the statement that no person will be saved without the work of the Spirit.

I don’t agree with the statement’s explanation of human sinfulness and I think it is inconsistent both with itself and the biblical witness. But it does not tend towards Pelagianism or semi-p.

I appreciate your attitude and spirit, Brother. If I could try to answer your question about all people sinning, who are inclined to sin, then I’ll give it a shot. This statement says that men are sinners, and they’re born that way….thus, they will sin in that day when they’re old enough to knowingly, willingly commit sin. In other words, this statement is not saying that people are not born sinners….they most defiinitely are….and because of the sin nature that we’re all born with, all will sin.

Thus, this statement is just saying that man is not guilty of Adam’s sin… Adam is. But, all men were badly affected by Adam’s sin….all men are sinners due to Adam’s sin…all men face the consequences of Adam’s sin….but, they are just not GUILTY of Adam’s sin….they’re guilty of their own sin.

If that’s what the statement means, I’d agree with it more but still not fully. I think we are under Adam’s guilt. That is why, as you say, we face the consequences of Adam’s sin. If we did not have an inherited or a headship guilt applied to us before our own moral culpability, then it doesn’t seem like a very just judgment for the non-guilty to face the consequence (death) from another’s guilt (and remember here we’re not talking about “consequence” such as a victim having consequences in their lives due to a perpetrator’s actions, but consequence that comes as a judgment from God).

But I agree with what you said–we have a sin nature. However, this requires a stronger word, IMO, than “inclination.” Inclination means we are prone to do something, but does not necessarily have the result that we will do something.

You said, “This statement says that men are sinners, and they’re born that way….thus, they will sin in that day when they’re old enough to knowingly, willingly commit sin. In other words, this statement is not saying that people are not born sinners….they most defiinitely are….and because of the sin nature that we’re all born with, all will sin.”

Now the statement says,

“…every person who is capable of moral action will sin.”

That seems to say that until one actually commits a sin, he is not a sinner. How can a baby be deemed a sinner under this statement if he has not actually sinned. If you say he is a sinner (even though he has not sinned), what do you do with this,

“Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God…”

Are babies innocent according to this document?

If they are sinners, how can that be AND according to the statement not be under the wrath of God, since they have not yet actually sinned?

Babies are not guilty of sin…according to this document. They are still sinners….due to Adam’s sin. But, they are not guilty of sin, until they’re old enough to knowingly, willingly commit sin. So, they’re not innocent in the sense of not being a sinner…..they’re just not guilty of personally sinning…….but, because they’re sinners, they will sin….

No, babies are not held accountable for sins, until they’re old enough to know what they’ve done. And, each person will answer to God for their own sins, just as the Bible teaches….as the lost stand before God to give an account of thier lives…to be judged according to thier works.

So, babies go to Heaven….even thought they’re born with a sin nature…with a bent towards sin…with a sin problem in their hearts…

I am not saying I agree with this position overall (I do think we were condemned in Adam). But the distinction between having a sin nature (i.e. being a sinner) and sinful acts (i.e. sinning or acting on that nature) makes sense to me.

You said, “This statement says that men are sinners, and they’re born that way…”

David, are babies sinners according to this statement? You say they’re born sinners but not guilty of sin. That’s confusing.

Godismyjudge, I understand the distinction between a sin nature and actually sinning. I’m having a hard time understanding how a human can be a sinner (prior to Jesus saving that person) and not be condemned as guilty. Are there any scriptures to back that up?

“Just what would those with a sin nature, but 1) have not actually sinned and 2) were not condemned in Adam, need to be forgiven of?”

Of being sinners, as David described them. If anyone is a sinner, he/she is condemned already. The wages of sin is death. Jesus dies on the cross for sinners.

My point is this. These statement (and David) want it both ways. They don’t want Adam’s guilt imputed to people…babies. They want to say that babies are sinners, but not yet guilty because the babies have not actually sinned yet.

But if they have not sinned and have no guilt, how can one call them sinners.

Romans 5, in fact much in Romans, makes the point that we are all sinners and deserving of the wrath of God, yet the statement says no one is under the wrath of God until they actually sin (“Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God…”).

For the record, I believe that Adam’s guilt was imputed to man, all of mankind. So, I believe that babies are sinners and guilty. I’ve stated that I believe that infants and severely mentally handicapped are elect and go to be with Jesus when they die. One can debate my view of that, but I believe that Romans teaches imputed guilt and contrasts it with imputed righteousness.

You and the traditionalists define “sinner” differently. They mean it (in this case) as only people born with a sin nature. You seem to think it implies either that the person is either condemned in Adam or has committed actual sin. It seems like you are arguing their definition is wrong (i.e. in no sense is someone with a sin nature but hasn’t been condemned in Adam or committed actual sin a “sinner”). I think that argument would depend on an explanation of Romans 5:12 and 5:19 – the core texts in this disagreement. Ultimately I think I would end up agreeing with you, but I do realize they understand those passages differently than I do.

On the internet several years ago one constantly heard charges of Legalism, Pharisaism, Brood of Vipers, you don’t believe in Inerrancy, you don’t believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, you don‘t have any Scripture for your view.

Today, thankfully, those accusations and name calling are not heard nearly so often. It’s not so much that we now all agree. But we just argue the issues and are a little more cautious about calling people names for Jesus.

I dream of a day when Calvinists and Traditionalists can stand hand in hand, still argue the finer points of salvation (soteriology), and Pelagius be nowhere to be found. Well, maybe not hand in hand.
David R. Brumbelow

Since Pelagius was charged as a heretic, then semi-Pelagian would imply partial heresy. If the endorsement of distinguished Southern Baptists representing majority theology are felt to be semi-heretics, why would the SBC minority want to hang out with such folks?

Most don’t have a Biblical Worldview either. We live in a day of “you earn what you get” and whether we like to admit it or not, the idea of “free will” is, “I got it, I chose it, it was my choice, I can do what I want and I can tell and convince others to do it too” and it makes sense to people. Not sure that should trump my Biblical Understanding (I’m not a Calvinist, I’m a Wovenist. . . or wolverine I suppose, so no throwing me under the bus).

That was my fault. I called David because I was not close to my computer and asked him to post it. If you will notice the date for the article is showing June 5, 2012. When I saw the date on the article I presumed it was the recent study by Lifeway back at the beginning of May. Don’t blame David, I was the one at fault.

No problem, Tim. I’m not trying to place blame. I can see how the mistake was made though. The website puts today’s date pretty prominently at the top of the page, but the byline for the article containing the author and date are easy to miss.

It just looked odd, and I wasn’t sure if I was missing something. I just knew it wasn’t new.

Chris: Unless you think all non-Calvinists are semi-pelagian by default, I assume you think there is a way of wording this article to reflect a non-Calvinist, yet non-semi-pelagian understanding? If so, what would it look like?

Document signers: Because the article has caused so much confusion and concern, even among non-Calvinists, do you think it is worthwhile to have another stab at articulating it differently? Note: I am not suggesting you do this just to appease the Calvinists.

“Unless you think all non-Calvinists are semi-pelagian by default, I assume you think there is a way of wording this article to reflect a non-Calvinist, yet non-semi-pelagian understanding? If so, what would it look like?”

The only other position I’m aware of, other than full Pelagianism, is the Arminian notion of prevenient grace: that though we are born incapacitated and unable to respond, God enables us to respond either as a universal act on all mankind or through the preaching of the gospel – that the gospel itself has the power to overcome blindness and deadness and enable response.

I submit that there are only two possible explanations to this document. Either A) the authors and signers knowingly admit that this document, specifically article 2, is semi-Pelagian in theology, and that they feel this is the “traditional” position of the SBC. Or B) in their over zealous disdain for Calvinists in the SBC, in an attempt to pain the “traditional” stance of the SBC as something other than Calvinist, the authors and signers of this document made an error, and compounded it by refusing to admit such an error and correct the language which can be interpreted as semi-Pelagian in spite of their intent.

In either case, this does not speak well of those who participated in this document, nor for the SBC as a whole.

I believe Pelagian and semi-Pelagian are helpful terms. Term that describe how we believe the God/man/faith paradigm works.

Pelagius felt that we have some freedom to act, to respond to what God wants from us. He started with freedom. That, I believe, is the wrong anthropology. We, as Luther so aptly pointed out in ‘The Bondage of the Will’, are not free (when it comes to matters of choosing God, or living a righteous life. “Faith is a gift.” Jesus told as much to Nicodemus and he said it elsewhere (to Simon Peter) ‘flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.” “No man CAN come to me, except he be drawn (compelled) by the Father.” etc..

What are you talking about? I’m talking about the fact that the Catholics condemned semi-Pelagianism in AD 529 without cause. Augustinianism is false doctrine and just because some Catholic bishops declared it to be orthodox in the 6th century does not make it so. Amen.

rey: In the days of those councils most priests were married. That celibacy bit was just beginning to take hold, but even as late as the 12th century it wasn’t as set as Rome liked. And it isn’t fair to attribute present day problems to folks of 1500 or more years ago.

Does your church want new members? -- 21 Comments
William Thornton I agree with you on the list. Several of them are big church things. An average church probably....
Karen I agree wholeheartedly with this post. The point is, don’t put all the responsibility on visitors and/or....
John Fariss I was traveling with my son on a Sunday some 30 years ago (maybe going to a funeral back home–I....